Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure

wiredmikey writes with this excerpt from a Wall Street Journal report: "The U.S. ushered in a new CIA-led counterterrorism program in Yemen on Friday, sending unmanned aircraft to kill an American-born cleric who occupied a top place on the U.S.'s anti-terrorist list. The death of Anwar al-Awlaki eliminates a leading figure in Yemen's branch of al Qaeda and one of its most charismatic recruiters. A Web-savvy Islamic preacher with sparkling English, Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth. He had been linked to suspects in the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the botched bombing of a Detroit-bound jet that Christmas."

Comments

5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:5th Amendment

[dkleinsc]

Anwar al-Awlaki was not and had never been a member of the US military, which is what that clause is plainly referring to. And even the military doesn't have carte blanche to just slaughter people - they're (in theory at least) bound by treaties and rules of engagement. No matter how you slice it, this was a US president ordering (or even worse, the CIA and DoD acting without orders) a US citizen killed far from any battlefield without presenting a shred of evidence to a jury.

There would be also some question about whether this was a time of war, as no declaration of war has ever been passed by Congress against Iraq, Afghanistan, or Al Qaida. Regarding "public danger", your chance of being killed by a terrorist has never been greater than your chance of being killed by a washing machine.

Re:5th Amendment

[OzPeter]

So, Constitutionally when a cop sees a person threatening the life of another the officers is not permitted too use deadly force to stop the act?

They are allowed. But what is not allowed is following the perp home and while they are sitting there watching TV, pointing your gun through the window and assassinating them.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.

That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...

They say he did that BUT if you read his speeches it doesn't quite jibe with the claims so this is fierce propaganda. Also, the declaration of war must be against a soverign nation and not an idealistic and nebulous term such as terrorism. By definition that can mean anyone who doesn't like the US. Al Queda isn't a soverign nation and there is no evidence he was actually a member. Rooting for those who fight arguably illegal US operations abroad isn't treason. If it is then we are in deep caca. If, in fact, he is guilty of the alleged crimes why was there no grand jury indictment or warrant out for his arrest? Now it is moot because he is dead. The "secret" list has 12 names on it of US citizens targeted for assassination and none have been vetted through any legal process

Re:5th Amendment

[jo42]

the guy was calling for the destruction of the US Constitution and the implementation of Sharia law

He was practicing his 1st amendment rights.

Re:5th Amendment

[DragonTHC]

that highlighted section is meant to refer to the UCMJ for active duty military personnel during a time of war or public danger.

It does not, in any way, say that when a war is going on, you can suspend the 5th amendment. It only means that in a time of war, active duty military personnel are not granted due process by the constitution.

Regular citizens are granted full protection of due process in all times.

don't even attempt to think that this wasn't a violation of the constitution.

I'll abridge to the pertinent bits for you: {No person, except in cases in the forces or militia in actual service in time of war, shall be deprived of life without due process of law}

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

No it doesn't. It just says it does. You know, sort of like how every action Hitler took was "legal" for the same reason.

I wonder how long before they start doing this on American soil? How long before they dispense with use of drones and authorize police in the streets to execute "terrorists" at will?

Re:5th Amendment

[chill]

World War 2 was a real war, with a declaration by Congress. The "war on terror" is not. Thus the other side are not "soldiers" and your comparison is invalid.

Terrorist activity, like it or not, is *criminal* activity and not under the rules of war, regardless of how the press refers to it.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Our ancestors had a penchant for being able to hold thoughts longer than soundbites.

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

Really? If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler? Why wouldn't you go to Versailles while they were negotiating the end of WWI and tell them of the terrible consequences of oppressing the Germans to the point of economic collapse?

If you killed Hitler, all you would have gotten was a martyr to the Nazi cause, and a better commander in chief at the head of their military. Would you have assassinated Hitler if it meant the Nazis won on D-Day? If they never invaded Russia and lost their forces to the general winter or, God forbid, they remained allies through the end of the war? Imagine an axis that stretched uninterrupted from Vichy France all the way to Japan.

Why is it that people always forget that actions have consequences? France and England CREATED Hitler through their brutal oppression of Germany. The US CREATED al-Qaeda via decades of interference in Mideast politics, especially propping up Saudi dictators. Continued interference will do nothing but make it worse and worse, until some figure appears in the Middle East and unites the whole Arab world, and we find that we are facing a nuclear armed Arab superpower with a hundred years of hate staring at us across the Atlantic as our economy falls apart and our military become unsustainable.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

It's been argued that he aided and directed the underwear bomber and some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Two points:

Bullshit and Bullshit.

As to the first piece of bullshit, show me where in the Constitution it says, "When accused by police, you are presumed guilty and will be executed."

As to the second, Al-awlaki was a moderate cleric invited to speak all over WA DC after the 9-11 attack. What turned him from moderate to radical, is the unrelenting slaughter of innocent people. Even _I_ think the US is evil for doing that and I'm just an average white guy atheist whose very immune to any arguments relating to crusades or jihad.

Your comment demonstrates exactly why this is so dangerous. Unsupported allegations now are considered proof in your mind. The constitution requires more than that and for good reason, but if this is what is to pass as evidence in America, it's fricken over. We've passed into the dictatorship stage.

One of 'us'

[maxume]

It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.

And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war and that there is a very strong case that this guy was involved with the enemy in that war.

Re:One of 'us'

[maxume]

I think you are making an awful big assumption when you say that nobody will want to organize resistance against a nation that claims to have power over the life and death of any person they deem to be a sufficient threat.

Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[mwasham]

If you value liberty you need to suck it up and admit that Ron Paul is right and quit playing this dems/reps game. They are one and the same.

Re:Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[mwasham]

"moneyed interests" - already control us. No need to trade anything. Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up to the "moneyed interests". You should educate yourself before you speak such non-sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8 http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

Re:War /= civil process.

[YA_Python_dev]

There's no war between the US and Yemen. And fighting organized crime is not a "war". Even the worst criminal has a right to a fair trial. It's a fundamental right, it cannot be revoked by anyone. Whoever ordered this murder should now be put on trial for it.

Re:War /= civil process.

[dkleinsc]

No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him.

Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point. The one thing that is not in dispute is that al-Awlaki advocated violence against the US government, but that has been ruled protected speech - if it hadn't been, people like William Piece (author of the Turner Diaries) would be up on charges. What has never been proven in a court of law, and is disputed by many folks who actually know what they're talking about in Yemen, is that Awlaki had anything to do with planning and executing any actual terrorist attacks.

Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.

Sure there was:
1. Present evidence to a judge sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for arresting him.
2. Work with the Yemeni authorities, who are allies of the US, to attempt to capture him and bring him to the US for trial. If he attempts to resist arrest, by all means shoot back.
3. Indict and try him, and if he is guilty, lock him up forever or execute him.

Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.

Awlaki posted hostile videos on Youtube. The US and Yemeni governments fired cruise missiles that killed not only Awlaki but several others nearby. Tell me exactly what 'proportional' means to you.

Bieber, you're next!

[eddy]

>Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth.

Re:Seven of Nine disapproves

[seven of five]

But I approve.

Re:War /= civil process.

[tmosley]

So if the president ordered your death, and got the approval of some 3rd world crackpot dictator on his way out the door, you would be totally ok with that? Remember, no trial, no accountability. All they have to do is say that you were an enemy of the state.